Difference between revisions of "Libertarians Misunderstand Coercion"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
because most "unable" really means that you haven't the money to bribe your | because most "unable" really means that you haven't the money to bribe your | ||
way past the coercive protections of property. (freedom as absence of | way past the coercive protections of property. (freedom as absence of | ||
| − | restrictions | + | restrictions is not present in a market society, where all useful material |
and situations tend to be property, and you must bribe your way past coercion.) | and situations tend to be property, and you must bribe your way past coercion.) | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Hayek (Const.OL p. 21) switches to ought when he has individuals creating their own private spheres. But really cannot prevent government from having rules about taxation and redistribution. He also has government mold the environment of rules in which the spontaneous order is to occur: but government is a rationalist order. | Hayek (Const.OL p. 21) switches to ought when he has individuals creating their own private spheres. But really cannot prevent government from having rules about taxation and redistribution. He also has government mold the environment of rules in which the spontaneous order is to occur: but government is a rationalist order. | ||
| − | Markets are | + | Markets are actually coercive solutions to [[collective action problems]]: they rely on the coercive creation of property and rights. Even simple strategies such as tit-for-tat and shunning rely on that same coercive background to protect the players. |
